| The economics of used games just don't work that way. Before the player has played the game, the value of the game disk is shown to be at least $60 dollars to that person. They show that by paying that price. Once a player has completed a single player game, the value of the disk to that person is now zero. Given the opportunity, they will sell the game at any price they can get. They will happily trade the game in for $5. To a new player coming along, they may still pay $60, but if there is a used (and effectively identical) copy sitting there for $55, why not buy that instead? A shop will price match a used game down to below any price that a publisher could conceivably wish to charge because they only pay a tiny price for the identical product used. > That is, two months in, why haven't they dropped the price of the new game enough to make it attractive compared to the used copy? The comparison is meaningless because they are identical. The cheaper price always wins, and the used game will always have the cheaper price. Used cars are fundamentally different than digital goods due to the fact that they can be consumed infinitely without devaluing the physical asset. |
But that's not really true, at all. "Replayability" is a term that gets tossed around, a lot when describing single player games. If "the value of the disk to that person is now zero" were true, it's a term that wouldn't even exist.
Additionally, I hate to resort to anecdotes, but I'm not sure if there's any unbiased research in this area -- but I don't know anyone who buys a brand new game, plays it for a month, and then "will happily trade the game in for $5." I mean, I'm sure there are people who do fit that mold, but if that were true, then all the used games shops would only give you $5 for any month-old game. But those month-old games command a much higher price than that, precisely because people aren't happily trading in the game for $5. This is really basic econ 101 stuff here. Supply and demand.